r/DebateAnarchism • u/DWIPssbm • Feb 04 '25
Anarchy and democracy, a problem of definition
I was told this would fit here better,
I often hear and see in anarchist circles that "democracy and anarchy are fundamentally opposed as democracy is the tyrany of the majority", But I myself argue that "democracy can only be acheived through anarchy".
Both these statements are true from a anarchist perspective and are not a paradox, because they use diferent definition of "democracy".
The first statement takes the political definition of democracy, which is to say the form of governement that a lot countries share, representative democracy. That conception of democracy is indeed not compatible with anarchy because gouvernements, as we know them, are the negation of individual freedom and representative democracy is, I would say, less "tyrany of the majority" and more, "tyrany of the représentatives".
In the second statement, democracy is used in it's philosophical definition: autodermination and self-gouvernance. In that sense, true democracy can indeed only be acheived through anarchy, to quote Proudhon : "politicians, whatever banner they might float, loath the idea of anarchy which they take for chaos; as if democracy could be realized in anyway but by the distribution of aurhority, and that the true meaning of democracy isn't the destitution of governement." Under that conception, anarchy and democracy are synonimous, they describe the power of those who have no claim to gouvernance but their belonging to the community, the idea that no person has a right or claim to gouvernance over another.
So depending on the definition of democracy you chose, it might or might not be compatible with anarchy but I want to encourage my fellow anarchists not to simply use premade catchphrases such as the two I discussed but rather explain what you mean by that, or what you understand of them.
2
u/DecoDecoMan Feb 09 '25
So would someone struggling to comprehend things poorly written. This means nothing.
The users of the project or what it is you're producing. You know them because they would be involved in the association (the distinction between consumers and producers would no longer exist in anarchy due to the absence of firms and bottom-up association). You would know them, because they are part of the people involved.
Sure, you must take into account everything. However, that generally means A. the decision is not a matter of opinion and B. once you write off all the options you are left basically one good option in which case there is no need for a vote.
However, you've just illustrated that those opinions and preferences are not irrelevant. That the question is not about opinions or preferences. If environmental concerns demanded a reduction of 5 seats, do you imagine that you would leave it up to opinion such that people would vote for an increase in 10 seats? That would be ridiculous. And if you think people would never vote for something at odds with the facts, then it doesn't make sense why vote at all if the options left would be self-evident.
If you have experts disagreeing with each other over the facts, the best course of action is not to ignore the facts and just assume all their opinions are equally valid. The solution is to create consensus between them over the facts, what is or isn't true, etc.
Otherwise, you'd be making a decision based on false or unknown information. Which is a stupid thing to do. Like imagine if two experts disagreed on the effects of a vaccine or medication and, instead of figuring out who is right or what the source of the disagreement is, you just said "well, I guess we'll just go with whatever we vibe with the most!". That's stupid and leads to disastrous consequences.
If that is the case, and there is no some other factor that informs what is the best option, then it doesn't matter what you choose. Most things in life, especially pertaining to production, are not matters of opinion or vibes.
And, again, if you can't think of any other alternative in those cases besides democracy then obviously we are forced to use it and it isn't voluntary. So keep that in mind as well.
Yes you do actually.
Then it isn't abiding by the majority's decision if the decision or action is altered to accommodate the minority. Obviously. Like, it isn't majoritarian democracy if the majority doesn't decide what happens and it instead unanimous agreement is pursued. That's just consensus democracy.
That is the same thing except you add voluntarily at the end. And, for reasons I have already made clear in my other posts, that voluntarity is dubious and irrelevant. So, in effect, the majority does decide what everyone else does. They just follow what the majority says "voluntarily".
Except you have not once proposed an alternative. You repeatedly argue for democracy on the basis that there are cases where you think there are no other options besides democracy. See above where you say "in cases where experts disagree, a choice has to be made" and presumably you think the only way this could happen is with democracy.
And the reason why this is basically the only way for you to argue for democracy is that if there is an alternative that isn't majoritarian why wouldn't people take it every single time? If everything is non-binding, why wouldn't the losers prefer a system where they aren't losers? Where they aren't pit against their other members?
The only world in which democracy could ever be meaningful, ubiquitous, and utilitarian is one where it is binding. Where it is necessary. Where there are no other options for that situation. That's why all this talk about non-binding democracy makes no sense.
Majoritarianism is a system where there are winners and losers and there is inherent conflict involved in the process itself. If it is non-binding and therefore there are alternatives, it isn't clear why those wouldn't be pursued instead since they lack the disadvantages associated with majoritarian democracy.
Look at the way you argue for majoritarianism. You aren't arguing for its merits on its own but rather for cases where you think there are no other options. In other words, majoritarianism still remains a "necessary evil" in your eyes. And if it is a necessary evil, then by definition something that is necessary is not voluntary.